South Africa’s Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) is facing renewed scrutiny after Parliament was informed that High Commissioner to India Ambassador Anil Sooklal had received official approval from the department to receive former president Jacob Zuma during his recent visit to India.
The revelation emerged after Democratic Alliance (DA) Member of Parliament Ryan Smith disclosed that Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on International Relations had been informed Sooklal acted on written instructions from DIRCO when he met Zuma and Ajay Gupta in India.
According to Smith, the information was communicated to members of the committee by its chairperson, Supra Mahumapelo, via the committee’s WhatsApp group.
“I am not sure how the communication was disseminated to the chairperson, but that is confirmed on our WhatsApp group,” Smith said.
The disclosure adds a new dimension to a controversy that erupted after Zuma visited a temple in Haridwar alongside Sooklal and Ajay Gupta, a member of the Gupta family accused of playing a central role in South Africa’s State Capture scandal.
Zuma was accompanied during the visit by JG Zuma Foundation spokesperson Mzwanele Manyi, who later told Indian media that the former president had travelled to visit “a brother and friend of mine” who had been forced to leave South Africa.
“I haven’t had time to meet with him, so I decided that I should come,” Zuma said.
While confirming he had briefed committee members on developments, Mahumapelo said the committee was still awaiting a formal report from DIRCO before commenting further.
“The chair has requested a report from the department, and once briefed by the minister, the committee will then issue a statement on the matter,” a statement issued on his behalf said.
DIRCO declined to comment on Saturday, with departmental spokesperson Chrispin Phiri saying the department’s position remained that outlined previously by International Relations and Cooperation Minister Ronald Lamola.
Lamola has already instructed the department to conduct an internal inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the visit.
“Once the inquiry is finalised, the minister’s office will be in a position to update the public accordingly,” Phiri said.
Smith called for the investigation to be concluded urgently, arguing that the public deserved clarity on whether the reception of Zuma had been officially sanctioned or whether Sooklal had acted outside his authority.
“South Africa needs to know whether Minister Lamola and his department knew about this visit and gave instructions to prepare for it, or whether the High Commissioner himself violated his mandate by doing so,” Smith said.
The controversy intensified after Minister in the Presidency Khumbudzo Ntshavheni strongly criticised Sooklal during a media briefing on Friday.
She described it as a disgrace that the ambassador had “hob-nobbed” with criminals instead of focusing on efforts to return wanted fugitives to South Africa.
Ntshavheni said Lamola had requested a report from Sooklal and indicated that “drastic steps will be taken” if it was established that anyone representing South Africa had undermined the country’s laws.
Lamola has taken a more measured approach, noting that former presidents are entitled to certain diplomatic privileges, including protocol facilitation, while stressing that government was investigating the circumstances surrounding the visit.
“We are inquiring to find out how this happened, what informed it, what was the nature of the visit, and what was the nature of the involvement of our High Commissioner in India,” Lamola said.
International relations expert Kingsley Makhubela questioned Ntshavheni’s remarks, suggesting they appeared to prejudge the outcome of the inquiry.
“It paralyses one of the critical statecraft that the country has. It sends a message across the bureaucracy that you shouldn’t do certain things,” Makhubela said.
Manyi also defended Zuma’s visit, arguing that South Africa’s failed attempts to extradite members of the Gupta family should be viewed in light of the United Arab Emirates court’s findings.
He said the UAE court had ruled that South Africa’s extradition request was legally deficient because it relied on a cancelled warrant for one charge, lacked a warrant for another and found that the alleged money laundering offences fell within UAE jurisdiction.
Manyi further criticised Ntshavheni for failing to distinguish between Ajay Gupta, who met Zuma in India, and his brothers Atul and Rajesh Gupta, who are the subjects of South Africa’s extradition efforts.
“They are indeed brothers, but they are not interchangeable,” he said.
Ntshavheni rejected that argument, maintaining that the UAE ruling did not change the legal status of the Gupta brothers in South Africa.
“They remain wanted fugitives, and that must be respected. Therefore, former president Jacob Zuma’s actions continue to undermine the country’s criminal justice system and the foreign policy of South Africa,” she said.
The controversy has also exposed differing views within the MK Party.
While party spokesperson Sifiso Mahlangu defended Zuma’s right to travel privately, former head of the MK Party presidency protection unit Magasela Mzobe warned that the visit risked damaging both Zuma’s image and that of the party.
“I hope the MKP leadership won’t entangle itself, the president, and our movement into this Manyi-Gupta entanglement,” Mzobe wrote on X, urging the JG Zuma Foundation and Manyi to assume responsibility for what he described as a private religious visit.
Political analyst Sipho Seepe said Zuma should have exercised greater caution given the political sensitivities surrounding the Gupta family.
“He should understand that there are political ramifications. Guptas are not light in this country. The fact that you had the Justice Department try to get them back here, it is something you should have factored in in terms of how you behave,” Seepe said.
Makhubela also argued that Sooklal’s role appeared limited to providing diplomatic assistance to a former head of state, but suggested Zuma himself should have exercised greater discretion because of the continuing investigations linked to the Gupta family.
The outcome of DIRCO’s internal inquiry is now expected to determine whether any further action will be taken against the High Commissioner or whether the department’s handling of Zuma’s visit complied with official protocol.
Discover more from Nehanda Radio
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
